Standing Committee D

[Mr. Alan Hurst in the Chair]

Railways and Transport Safety Bill

Schedule 1 - Office of Rail Regulation

John Spellar: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in
schedule 1, page 49, line 21, at end insert— 
 ''(cc) has had his estate sequestrated in Scotland or, under Scots law, has made a composition or arrangement with, or granted a trust deed for, his creditors,''.

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Government amendments Nos. 44, 41 and 42. 
 Government new clause 3—Schedules 1 and 4: sequestration, &c. in Scotland. Mr. Spellar: The amendments reflect the different law on bankruptcy in Scotland as it relates, first, to the Secretary of State's power to dismiss a member of the Office of Rail Regulation and, secondly, to eligibility for appointment to the British Transport Police Authority. 
 The Enterprise Act 2002 includes new provisions on bankruptcy for England and Wales and introduces bankruptcy restrictions orders. The Bill provides that someone who is subject to a bankruptcy restrictions order may be dismissed from the Office of Rail Regulation. It also provides that someone who is subject to such an order is ineligible for appointment to the British Transport Police Authority. The relevant provisions of the 2002 Act have yet to be commenced, and clauses 70(3)(l) and 108(3)(a) allow transitional provisions on bankruptcy to be made by order, should the provisions relating to the BTPA and the ORR come into force first. 
 The provisions on bankruptcy restrictions orders in the 2002 Act do not apply to Scotland, and it is for the Scottish Parliament to decide whether to legislate for equivalent provision. For the present, however, the Bill must reflect existing bankruptcy arrangements in Scotland, and it is better to do that in the Bill than through secondary legislation, as currently provided for by clauses 70(2)(m) and 108(3)(b). 
 Amendment No. 43 sets out the bankruptcy grounds in Scotland on which the Secretary of State may dismiss a member of the Office of Rail Regulation. Amendment No. 44 sets out the bankruptcy grounds in Scotland on which a person would be ineligible for appointment to the British Transport Police Authority. Amendment No. 41 deletes the order-making power to make transitional arrangements on bankruptcy in Scotland in connection with the British Transport Police Authority. In the light of amendment No. 44, that power will no longer be needed. Amendment No. 42 
 deletes the order-making power to make transitional arrangements on bankruptcy in Scotland in connection with the Office of Rail Regulation. In the light of amendment No. 43, that power will also no longer be needed. New clause 3 sets out how and when ineligibility or liability to removal on the grounds of bankruptcy in Scotland shall cease.

Anne McIntosh: I thank the Minister for his comments and particularly for saying that it would be up to the Scottish Executive to decide whether the provisions of the Enterprise Act 2002 should enter Scottish law. What discussions has his Department had with the responsible body in the Scottish Executive about the prospective timetable? Is it satisfactory to have two different sets of provisions? If the amendments are made, what will be the state of the arrangements in Scotland until the Executive implements the Act?

John Spellar: I hoped that it was clear from my initial statement that the new bankruptcy provisions do not apply to Scotland. When the Scottish Parliament legislates, we will obviously need to take account of that. At present, however, the Bill must reflect existing provisions on bankruptcy in Scotland. The mechanism by which bankruptcy is enforced does not particularly matter for the purposes of the Bill. What matters is that a bankruptcy decision made under those mechanisms—whatever they are—deals with an individual's qualification to be a member of the Office of Rail Regulation or the British Transport Police Authority. The amendments would take account not just of the difference between Scotland and England, but the potential variation in Scotland, to get to the core of the issue, which is that those who have been adjudged bankrupt should not be allowed to serve on the various boards.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Question proposed, That this schedule, as amended, be the First schedule to the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: Schedule 1 is extremely important, and I want to refer first to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) on First Reading.

David Jamieson: Second Reading.

Anne McIntosh: I thank the Under-Secretary of State for that.
 The issue is the replacement of the present rail regulator with the Office of Rail Regulation. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale cited, on Second Reading, the report of the Better Regulation Task Force, and asked: 
''Is it the case, as some people suspect, that the Government were not exactly reluctant to implement that recommendation of their taskforce, given that the current rail regulator, Mr. Tom Winsor, has demonstrated that he is capable of being independent not only of individual concerns within the rail industry but also of Her Majesty's Government? Some Members will recall the occasion when the regulator gave evidence to the Select Committee on Transport about a difference of opinion, or of recollection, between him and a former Secretary of State. It would be a matter of great regret and some seriousness if the Government's decision to change the whole nature of the operation of the Office of the Rail Regulator were to stem from their frustration at the regulator's actions on that occasion. We 
hope to be able to establish clearly that getting their own back played no part in the Government's motivation.''—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 781.]
 The Better Regulation Task Force, which is an independent advisory group, was set up in 1997, and its terms of reference are to advise the Government on action that improves the effectiveness and credibility of Government regulation. That is done by ensuring that regulation is necessary, fair, affordable and simple to understand, taking particular account of the needs of small businesses and ordinary people. Its members are unpaid and come from a variety of backgrounds, but all have experience of regulatory issues. They are drawn from large and small businesses, citizens and consumer groups, unions, the voluntary sector and those responsible for enforcing regulations. 
 The taskforce reviews particular regulatory issues and has set five principles for good regulation—transparency, accountability, proportionality, consistency and targeting. In July 2001, it published a report on economic regulators, which considered the form of organisational structure best suited to effective economic regulation. There is widespread agreement, we are told, that regulators should be run by properly appointed boards rather than individual regulators. 
 It would be most helpful if the Minister for Transport would tell the Committee what other sectors are currently being reviewed in a similar way.

Don Foster: I am listening to the hon. Lady with great interest, but I confess that I have not the foggiest notion where she is going. Will she confirm that the very report to which she has referred—the economic regulators report of July 2001—specifically stated that the advantage of a broad structure for the operation in question was that it would ensure a wider range of expertise in the decision-making process, would increase continuity in decision making and provide greater transparency and accountability. Does the hon. Lady agree with that, and if she does, would it not be sensible to go ahead with the Government's proposals?

Anne McIntosh: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall be brief. Like a train, I will get there, perhaps not on time, and certainly not to his timetable, but in my own time.
 A serious charge has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, which I lay at the Government's door.

John Spellar: Perhaps the hon. Lady could help the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) by saying whether the Front-Bench spokesman on Trade and Industry or any other Conservative Front-Bench spokesman has opposed the report of the Better Regulation Task Force in that regard?

Anne McIntosh: I know that the Government do not like answering questions, but the Minister confirms that they wriggle out of doing so by asking different ones. I shall keep to the point and in order and ask the Minister, very slowly, one more time, whether he will set out, for the benefit of the Committee and the House, for me and for our colleagues at the
 Department of Trade and Industry, the Government's programme for dismantling the various offices of independent regulators and replacing them with a regulatory board. That is my first question.

Don Foster: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Anne McIntosh: No. If the hon. Gentleman's interventions were helpful, I would have no hesitation in giving way, but I want to make progress.
 I want to help the Government to show that they are not being vindictive and do not have a vendetta against a gentleman whose integrity, independence and role as an independent economic regulator is not in doubt. That was reflected in the modest minority report of the Select Committee, but it was also recorded in the main report. I have no problem with the five principles, but I want to ask the Minister why this particular rail regulator, who has done a good job and who has been a beacon of independence—if he were a school, he would have been given a beacon for being a good school—is being removed from office. I also want to know how the Government plan to apply the five principles and, to repeat the question that I asked on Second Reading, to ask what role the Minister envisages the present rail regulator fulfilling. 
 Paragraph 1(1) of the schedule sets out the constitution. It says, 
''The Office of Rail Regulation shall consist of a chairman and at least four other members appointed by the Secretary of State.''
 Given that the Minister said in moving his amendments, which we did not oppose, that the amendments will not apply in Scotland, it will be interesting to know whether the Government intend to appoint someone who has a Scottish background, perhaps in Scottish law or business. 
 Paragraph 1(2) states 
''The chairman or another member''—
 [Interruption.] 
 I shall speak more slowly and a little louder, Mr. Hurst, as there seem to be some noises off this morning, which are most distracting. 
 Paragraph 1(2) states 
''The chairman or another member—
(a) may not be appointed for a term of more than five years (but may be reappointed)''.
 Does that mean that they can be reappointed just for a further five years, or for another five years after that? Will there a limit or a maximum appointment? I am sure that the Minister will find some assistance in his briefing notes. 
 The chairman or another member 
''may resign by notice in writing to the Secretary of State''.
 I pause slightly to put a question regarding evidence from the present rail regulator that a former Secretary of State sought to bring an injunction preventing the regulator from granting an interim review of Railtrack when more money was requested. The Government, in their worst judgment, choose to put Railtrack into administration. I asked Tom Winsor whether he had considered resigning because his independence had 
 been removed because he wanted to grant an interim review allowing Railtrack the further money that it felt it needed. That happened against the background of Renewco and all the efforts put into that new financial vehicle, which, we were told, would be the future life-blood of Railtrack. Renewco never came into being, and we shall not go down that track, because I get vexed about it. I remind hon. Members that I still own half my Railtrack shares, so I have a personal interest.

John Spellar: Will the hon. Lady tell us the price at which she bought her Railtrack shares?

Alan Hurst: Order. The hon. Lady will not answer that—this is not the stock exchange.

Anne McIntosh: And I am not a financial adviser, you will be pleased to learn, Mr. Hurst. Suffice it to say that I feel so passionate about the rail industry that I took the first opportunity to purchase shares in companies such as Railtrack and Eurotunnel. The price was whatever it was at the outset. Perhaps if the Minister shared my passion, the rail industry would not be in the mess it is in today under his stewardship.
 I return to the circumstances in which an independent regulator would be forced to resign. Tom Winsor and I debated that in the former Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee. The rail regulator was clear that his independence could be removed only by Parliament, yet the Bill goes counter to that. Schedule 1 goes to the heart of the independence of the rail regulator. I wish to record my—

David Jamieson: Interest?

Anne McIntosh: My distress. My interest is already recorded.
 I record my distress and disappointment for the rail regulator, who has been exemplary in his performance, who could not have behaved better, and who has shown himself to be a man of integrity and strength in difficult circumstances. His reward for that is to be removed by a Bill. 
 Under what circumstances would the Minister for Transport expect the chairman or another board member to 
''resign by notice in writing to the Secretary of State''?
 How would the Government react if the Office of Rail Regulation proposed a course of action similar to that proposed by the rail regulator, and all the members of the board resigned en masse? Would they simply reappoint the chairman and the other members of the board, or would they accept the resignations and find alternative appointees? Paragraph 1(2)(b) of the schedule relates to what the rail regulator informed the Select Committee were the only circumstances under which his independence would be removed. However, I believe—I could be proved wrong and the matter is up for debate—that the schedule is vindictive and seeks to get rid of an individual who has proven to be independent and a man of integrity. 
 I seek the Minister's guidance on how paragraph 1(2) puts into place the five guiding principles proposed by the Better Regulation Task Force—transparency, accountability, proportionality, consistency and targeting. We all want the railway 
 industry to have a degree of economic independence. The idea has been tested to the full, but it seems that the reward for acting independently is for the body to have its independence removed by the provision before us this morning. 
 The schedule says that the chairman or other member of the Office of Rail Regulation ''shall hold and'', curiously, 
''vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment.''
 I seek assistance from the Minister on that: I have limited experience in Committee, but I have not seen that expression before. When I have been employed in the past, I never noticed a clause in my contract stating that I should vacate office in accordance with my appointment. It is a curious and rather vulgar expression, and I look forward to hearing the Minister shed some light on it. 
 We are told in paragraph 1(3): 
''Before appointing a member other than the chairman the Secretary of State shall consult the chairman.''
 The chairman may be minded to have alongside him as a fellow member the present regulator who, I repeat, is a man of integrity and independence who could bring a sense of stability to the new office in view of the difficult decisions that have to be taken. Would a place be available for the present regulator if the chairman of the Office of Rail Regulation wanted him? 
 Paragraph 2 is deeply worrying: 
''The Secretary of State may dismiss a member of the Office by notice in writing on the grounds that the member . . . has been absent from meetings of the Office without permission of the Office during a period of more than three months''.
 What would happen if someone were genuinely ill for three months? Someone doing a good job could be seriously ill and have to be absent for longer than that period. That provision is strict and unnecessary. 
 People can also be dismissed where they have 
''a financial or other personal interest which is likely to influence the performance of his functions as a member''.
 Will the Minister take note and help us with what counts as ''personal interest''? 
 We are clearer about paragraph 2(c) on bankruptcy, but paragraph 2(d) curiously uses the phrase ''has misbehaved''. I am sure that Government Members sometimes feel that I am misbehaving, but happily they are guided by your good self, Mr. Hurst. What does the Bill mean when it says that someone can be dismissed from office because they have misbehaved? What misbehaviour could be construed as grounds for dismissal? Again, it is a curious expression, and I wonder whether it is a common one among Government advisers and parliamentary draftsmen? What misbehaviour would be sufficient to cause the Secretary of State to dismiss a member? What concerns me is that the chairman or a member of the Office of Rail Regulation may behave in a way that is not pleasing to the Secretary of State. It would the most appalling state of affairs if he could construe that as misbehaviour. The office of the present rail regulator is being removed by the Bill to be replaced by a different office with five members, who may serve 
 for five, 10, 15 or 20 years; but if they misbehave, they will be dismissed. It would help to know what form of misbehaviour is meant.

John Spellar: On the slightly naive assumption that the hon. Lady is not spinning out the debate and playing for time, I reassure her that the phrase ''hold and vacate office'' is used in section 1(4) of the Railways Act 1993, passed by her own party—so there is no change. I am advised that misbehaviour is the ground on which the current regulator may be dismissed under section 1(3) of the Railways Act. It is a commonly used expression. Unless the hon. Lady is playing for time, in which case we shall just have to sit here and be bored, I assure her that such common phrases are used in many regulations made by Governments of both parties.

Anne McIntosh: That is helpful. I regret that we could not have had this discussion between 3.30 pm and 5 pm last Thursday when the Minister had to be in another place.

John Spellar: We had another Minister.

Anne McIntosh: In that case, I do not know why we did not discuss these matters then.

John Spellar: I can enlighten the hon. Lady. I understand that Divisions were expected in the House and the Opposition Whip suggested that we adjourn.

Anne McIntosh: I understood that an agreement was made on how far we would get, and that we would adjourn at 5 pm.

Alan Hurst: Order. Whatever we did on Thursday afternoon, we are discussing the matter now.

Anne McIntosh: I am delighted to be doing so, Mr. Hurst, and I am most grateful to the Minister for his helpful remarks.
 Paragraph 3, on staffing, states: 
''The Office shall appoint a Chief Executive.''
 Does the Minister envisage the excellent present rail regulator duly occupying that post, and will the Secretary of State make such a recommendation? I hope that the Minister will confirm that he would welcome that. It would be nice to hear him say that the present regulator has done a good job and is a man of integrity, and that he is not being removed because of a personality clash with a past Secretary of State. Perhaps the Minister's silence speaks for itself. 
 Paragraph 3 further states that, before appointing a chief executive, the office should 
''consult the Secretary of State, and . . . obtain the Treasury's approval of the terms and conditions of appointment.''
 What reward will the chairman and chief executive receive for fulfilling those functions? What will be the total cost of the Office of the Rail Regulator? I shall talk about that in more detail when we come to paragraph 11, but the chairman and chief executive alone will cost more than the present rail regulator. The Better Regulation Task Force report does not say that the chairman and the chief executive should cost the taxpayer more money. How do the Government square that in the overall scheme? 
 Paragraph 4(1) states that the office may appoint ''other employees''. I assume that the office may appoint employees in addition to the chairman and at least four other members appointed by the Secretary of State. That raises the question of how many employees the Government envisage the office encompassing. Will it have the same composition as the rail regulator's team? Will many more people be needed to service the office given that it will have a chairman, a chief executive and at least three other members? If so, what will be the cost to the Exchequer? Will it be announced in the Budget for 2003–04? The arrangements may not have been agreed with the Treasury, given that paragraph 4(2) states: 
''The power under sub-paragraph (1) may be exercised only if the Office has the approval of the Treasury as to . . . numbers, and . . . terms and conditions of employment.''

Don Foster: On a point of order, Mr. Hurst. The schedule has 97 lines. The hon. Lady has occupied the crease for half an hour and covered 33 of them. Might I be able to take a break for about an hour until she finishes? What would your advice be?

Alan Hurst: Order. It is for Members to decide how they address questions.

Anne McIntosh: Thank you, Mr. Hurst.
 I ask the Minister to address my remarks, because I want to know when he expects to raise these issues with the Treasury and when the House will be told the overall budget. I would prefer to be told today, before we leave schedule 1. It is right and proper that we should ask such questions now, and I am surprised that the Liberal Democrat spokesman is not concerned about the cost and the size of the Office of Rail Regulation. 
 I am told that service as an employee of the office is employment in the civil service of the state, so I repeat my earlier question: how many employees and officials do the Government expect the office to have? 
 Paragraph 6 states: 
''The Office may establish one or more committees (which may include persons who are neither members of nor employed by the Office).''
 What will be the composition of those committees? Will there be remuneration committees and pension committees? Will committees examine the way in which the office functions? How will they function in terms of the five principles of the Better Regulation Task Force? How many people do the Government expect to service the committees? How many officials of the Office of Rail Regulation will be required to man them? 
 Paragraph 7 seems a good provision. It tells us: 
''The Office may delegate a function to . . . the Chief Executive or another employee, or . . . a committee.''
 Will that happen in the context of regulations introduced outside schedule 1? I am concerned that we do not know in more detail what the office's constitution will be. 
 Paragraph 8 seems perfectly normal and proper. 
 Paragraph 9 states: 
''The Office may do anything which it thinks necessary or expedient for the purpose of or in connection with the performance of its functions.''
 That is a very wide-ranging power. For the sake of clarity, the Minister might like to say how that provision compares with the equivalent provision in the Railways Act 1993. 
 I am surprised that the Minister has not used the Bill to respond to the specific request by the former Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions that the Government clarify once and for all the specific relationship between the rail regulator—now to be the Office of Rail Regulation—and the Strategic Rail Authority. I should have thought that schedule 1 was the right and proper place to set out what that formal relationship would be. Why has that not been done? The power in paragraph 9(1) seems very wide. Subject to what the Minister says, I should like to express our concerns about that. On paragraph 10, how long does he think that a vacancy would be allowed to remain before the place was taken? 
 Paragraph 11 relates to money. It states: 
''The Office may with the approval of the Secretary of State make to or in respect of members of the Office, employees or committee-members payments by way of or in respect of—
(a) remuneration;
(b) pension;
(c) allowances;
(d) expenses.''
 What will be the overall budget for the Office of Rail Regulation? The Government have been deeply embarrassed by pension provision for the Lord Chancellor, and Opposition Members want to help the Government to avoid similar embarrassment in future. I should like to know for certain what pension provision has been made in respect of paragraph 11(b). Will a committee on the remuneration of pensions be set up in the Office of Rail Regulation? If so, who will man it? Will it be comprised of all the board members, or of non-executive directors? If they are non-executive people, will they be remunerated? Again, what budget will there be for that? 
 It is appalling to have schedule 1, particularly paragraph 11, before us when we have not been told what the budget will be. The cost of Network Rail is running at £20 billion and rising, but the Government have not yet placed that figure on the balance sheet. Under the Office of Rail Regulation, they will increase expenditure over that currently spent on the rail regulator. Will the Minister be so good as to tell us the budget? 
 Paragraph 13 says that there is scope for further spending. It states: 
''If the Secretary of State thinks that special circumstances of a person's ceasing to be a member of the Office make it appropriate to pay him compensation, the Office may pay him compensation of an amount approved by the Secretary of State''.
 Will that amount be capped? Will we be told what relationship it has to the salary? Can we at the very 
 least be told what the salary and pension provision will be? 
 I assume that the provisions on conflict of interest are similar to those in the Railways Act 1993. I hope that the Minister has had sufficient time to gather his thoughts and respond to those pertinent points.

Don Foster: I shall try to keep us going until 11.25 am, but I am not convinced that I will be able to, because schedule 1 contains paragraphs and sub-paragraphs that are so familiar to many of us who have served in the past on Committees that have discussed bodies such as the new rail body that it seems ludicrous to go through them in such great detail.
 I would have been interested had the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) addressed the concerns that she and I have previously raised about the establishment of the Office of Rail Regulation. The schedule could have afforded an opportunity to slim down regulation in the way promised by the previous Secretary of State and recommended by the Select Committee on which the hon. Lady serves. 
 The hon. Lady will remember that, when we last debated this matter, I specifically referred to the recommendation of the former Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee that the role of the regulator should be reviewed. She advised me to have a look, if I had not done so already, at the minority report that she produced, as she rightly said, with considerable help from the Clerks, for which she was very grateful. I have now had an opportunity to read the report, but I see nothing in it that counteracts that recommendation about reviewing the way in which regulation takes place. I had therefore hoped that we would hear the hon. Lady's views on that issue today. 
 Instead, she acted as a referee in advance of Mr. Tom Winsor's seeking to become chief executive. I have never heard such glowing eulogies for someone in advance of their even applying for a post. I hope that Tom Winsor will consider whether the hon. Lady would be an appropriate referee should he apply for that job. 
 I shall apologise profusely if I am doing the hon. Lady an injustice, but I was disappointed with her apparent failure to do much research in advance of her speech. Her analysis of some of the paragraphs showed that she had not bothered to check the current arrangements in respect of the Office of Rail Regulation or legislation on other regulatory boards. She missed a few tricks. She said that bankruptcy was perfectly normal, but I am surprised that she had not discovered that one could question the Government about whether they had taken fully on board the Enterprise Act 2002, which provides that bankruptcy does not necessarily bar someone in all circumstances. I must tell the Minister that that is not covered. Will he therefore assure members of the Committee that the Government are taking recent legislation on bankruptcy fully into account? 
 It was great to hear the hon. Lady saying that paragraph 8 seems to be perfectly normal and proper. We can all sleep well in our beds knowing that. The 
 hon. Lady did not check other regulations, but one might have hoped that she would at least check the words on the papers before us and get those right before being critical about them. 
 The hon. Lady asked a long series of questions about the definition of misbehaving, which is fair enough. We could all come up with a list of what might be deemed to be misbehaviour that could lead to dismissal, such as dancing naked on top of the new office premises to which the Office of Rail Regulation might move. 
 Given her words on absence, I was surprised that the hon. Lady did not notice the next few words of paragraph 2(a): 
''has been absent from meetings of the Office without permission of the Office''.
 The issues raised about someone who might legitimately be ill and absent for three months are perfectly adequately covered by the words ''without permission''. 
 I am bitterly disappointed that we have spent 30-odd minutes discussing the subject, but have got no nearer to discovering what it is that the hon. Lady wants to know. We do know, however, that she is interested in discovering whether what the Government are doing is, as she described it, a vindictive move against a particular individual. Some Members may have conspiracy theories, but I have seen praise on the record for the work of Tom Winsor from senior members of the Government, the previous Secretary of State and the Department of Transport. I share the hon. Lady's view that, broadly speaking, Mr. Winsor has done a good job. One is bound to question some of the decisions taken, and I do not necessarily agree that everything that he has done has been perfect. Nevertheless, he has done an extremely good job. 
 We know, and the hon. Lady has reminded us innumerable times, that the Better Regulation Task Force recommended that replacing an individual with a board would ensure that several things were likely to be done better. As she knows, because she has referred to the report in this and in other speeches, that would ensure wider expertise, continuity in decision making, greater transparency and greater accountability. 
 The hon. Lady, clearly not having done her homework, asked the Minister what was happening to other regulators. She should be aware that every other regulator either has a board or is in the process of moving to have one. The rail regulator is the one remaining regulator that has not moved into that form of organisation. It makes eminent sense to move in that direction, for the very reasons that the hon. Lady gave. 
 The hon. Lady asked one legitimate question about costs, and she chided me for not showing an interest. I wish to disabuse her of that notion. If one thinks something will be better but will cost significantly more, one must judge whether it will provide value for money. I will listen with interest to the Minister's response to that. However, I hope that for the rest of 
 our deliberations Members who intend to speak will do their homework, and make clear their key areas of concern and suggestions for change. I hope that we will not have to listen to lengthy questions about the meaning of such words as ''behave'' because of a belief that there is a hidden agenda or that someone is being vindictive.

Anne McIntosh: The hon. Gentleman says that he shares my concern about finances. Is he aware that the extra cost for the appointment of additional non-executive members of the regulatory board of the Office of Rail Regulation will be in the region of £200,000? Maths is not my strongest point, but if we tot up the cost of the non-executive directors plus the cost of replacing one individual with at least five, the costs will come to more than £1 million extra each year. We need to know what the costs will be and when the Government will receive the say-so from the Treasury.

Don Foster: The hon. Lady rightly says that the changes could prove expensive. I hope she will receive an answer to her legitimate question. Maths is not my strong point either, so I shall not check on the back of my fag packet whether her calculations are correct.

Kelvin Hopkins: We are talking about relatively trivial sums compared to the vast sums of money poured into the railways since privatisation. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if just one VAT inspector, for example, is employed, he or she makes many times his or her salary every year? Good regulation may require more staff to be appointed who may make many times their own salaries in return?

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is worth reflecting that the Better Regulation Task Force made this proposal. One must assume that better regulation will lead to more efficient and effective running of the railways and the commensurate financial saving to which he referred.
 I chide the hon. Gentleman a little, however. If the hon. Lady is right and we are talking about millions of pounds, he should not suggest that that is a small amount of money. After 10 years of operation, the cost would be £10 million, and I could suggest a few branch lines that could have benefited from that money. We need to be careful not to give the impression that £1 million here or there is not much money. However, if expending such a sum leads to savings well in excess of it, there would clearly be great benefit in doing so. That is why we need to hear the answer from the Minister. 
 I genuinely believe that the Government are proposing the right way forward. However, I regret that the opportunity has not been taken to meet the pledge given by the previous Secretary of State to slim down regulation or to follow the advice of the former Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee to review regulation with a view to slimming it down. I need to hear from the Minister categorical details about the costs and whether the Government have rightly taken into account recent legislation on bankruptcy.

John Spellar: I rise nearly an hour after the debate started, which might or might not have something to do with the fact that we have just received a brief visit from the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip, the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin).
 It is wrong to personalise the move. As the hon. Member for Bath said, we have consistently commented on the valuable work undertaken by the current regulator, and I cite the interim review in particular. I was interested in the commendation of the regulator by the hon. Member for Vale of York. Perhaps if she had taken more note of his powerful strictures on the management, or mismanagement, of Railtrack, she might have made more prudent decisions, at an earlier date, about her Railtrack shares. 
 On cost, as has rightly been pointed out, the explanatory notes make it clear that the extra cost of appointing additional non-executive members will probably be less than £200,000, an increase of less than 1.5 per cent. in the rail regulator's budget, which will be covered, in part, by the industry, although I accept that that may be offset indirectly by increases in public subsidy.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister says that much of the cost will be passed on to the industry. The industry is concerned, however, that its representation, especially on the British Transport police authority, will be reduced. It seems grossly unfair that the industry should pay more when it will have less representation.

John Spellar: It is not a question of representation. The purpose of the rail regulator is to provide a proper environment for regulation. I heard nothing in the hon. Lady's contribution to suggest that the Opposition oppose the recommendation of the Better Regulation Task Force that regulators should be overseen by a board. As the hon. Member for Bath said, the rail and water regulators are the last of the economic regulators to become corporate bodies. If the hon. Lady wishes to make that case, she must state definitively that the Opposition do not believe the model proposed is the right one and that the process should be stopped and reversed in relation to other regulators.
 I do not know what the overall budget cost for the Office of Rail Regulation will be, because the ORR will set its own budget. No salaries have yet been set for the chairman and chief executive because it is too early. They will have to be agreed with the Secretary of State at a later date. The Bill's provisions on bankruptcy take into account the Enterprise Act 2000, which introduced bankruptcy restriction orders and interim orders. The grounds for dismissal from office are set out in paragraph 2(c) of schedule 1 in relation to England and Wales. I have already explained the bankruptcy provisions that relate to Scotland, and I am pleased to put that on the record for the benefit of the hon. Member for Bath. 
 It will be for the office itself to decide whether to delegate its functions to a committee. No further regulation is appropriate because the Bill provides for the necessary powers. The office and the Strategic Rail 
 Authority have their own powers and are able to come to some arrangement, concordat or agreement about the relationship between them, which is more appropriate than to provide for the relationship in statute. 
 We do not expect there to be a significant increase in staffing as a result of the regulator being replaced by a regulatory board. The management of the office will be the responsibility of the Office of Rail Regulation, as it is of the single regulator at present. To summarise, a clear principle arising from the Better Regulation Task Force has been applied across the regulatory regime. Unless the hon. Member for Vale of York can come up with an overwhelming argument as to why the fundamental argument is wrong, which would entail reversing the creation of regulatory boards rather than an individual regulator across the industry, the Committee should reject her arguments and vote for the schedule.

Anne McIntosh: I posed some questions to the Minister, some of which he has answered. Their purpose was to find out why the new format is considered to be better. I do not say that we do not agree, but my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale clearly wants the Government to prove that it is an improvement, not merely a reaction to frustration with the regulators and the wrath that that has incurred in the Government.
 I fear that the Minister is being economical in describing how far the reform is to go. We were told on 12 June 2002 that further reform could be required if the board of the Office of Rail Regulation failed to establish a constructive relationship with Network Rail. The Secretary of State described the guiding principles under which the Government have conducted their considerations and continued: 
''The Government will need to continue to keep the effectiveness of the regime under review as the rail sector develops. The implementation of EU Directives already requires the Government to review the regulatory framework and adjust it in accordance with the Directives as necessary (the implementation of the First Railway Package of Directives is due by March 2003).''—[Official Report, 12 June 2002; Vol. 386, c. 1263W.]
 We had the opportunity to set out in schedule 1, for the benefit of Parliament, exactly what the cost would be. We have to justify such things; we cannot give the Treasury a blank cheque. However, we have not progressed, despite a comprehensive debate. The schedule could have gone further, so I register my disappointment and my wish to return to the matter. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15 - Transfer of functions

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 53, in
clause 15, page 7, line 35, at end insert— 
 '(3) The main functions of the Office of Rail Regulation will be the regulation of the monopoly and dominant elements of Network Rail. The Office of Rail Regulation will: 
 (a) set the contractual and financial framework within which Network Rail works to maintain, renew and expand the network; 
 (b) ensure that Network Rail's income, a combination of private finance and public subsidy set by the Office of Rail Regulation, is spent on the right things at the right times; and 
 (c) approve agreements governing the terms and conditions by which train operators gain access to the track and infrastructure and licenses all operators'.
 The hon. Member for Bath is ahead of me. Many of the points that I wanted to make in relation to this amendment would have been ruled out of order had I made them in relation to schedule 1. Some of them also relate to schedule 2, but I shall try to save them until the appropriate time. 
 We tabled amendment No. 53 because we are clear what the present rail regulator does and what his function and purpose are but, mysteriously, I can find no definition anywhere in the Bill, including in the schedules, of the function of the Office of Rail Regulation. Schedule 2, particularly the chart on pages 51 and 52, is deeply confusing. This is by way of assistance to the Government, and I hope that they will accept it as such. Surely, they cannot have intended to leave out a simple, precise definition of what the Office of Rail Regulation is expected to do—hence our amendment. It is no secret that I did not make it up; I had assistance from a Government source. If that is plagiarism, I plead guilty to plagiarising the Government's description of the functions of the rail regulator.

Don Foster: I read the amendment with considerable interest, and the hon. Lady correctly points out that it is plagiarism. Therefore, I do not understand the need for it. Clause 15(1) says that
''The functions of the Rail Regulator are hereby transferred to the Office of Rail Regulation.''
 That clearly states that the functions will be carried out by the new body. Therefore, there is no need to repeat them. I am at a loss to understand the need for the amendment.

Anne McIntosh: I am a simple soul. I believe that the functions should be stated clearly in the Bill. We have already come across one or two difficulties in schedule 1, and today we are discussing a Bill that will amend the 1993 Act, no copies of which are available. Would it not be simpler to include a description of the functions in the Bill? The Secretary of State said that the Government wish to keep the matter under constant review. A parliamentary question on that subject received a rather lengthy answer on 12 June of last year, at column 1262W. It was of some concern, when we were expecting the Bill, that the Secretary of State went on record in that way.
 If the Secretary of State is asking the House to keep the functions of the Office of Rail Regulation under constant review, we must know what the functions are. Even the Select Committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), was not satisfied in its report ''Passenger Rail Franchise and the Future of Railway Infrastructure'' that it was entirely clear 
 about the functions of the rail regulator. The rail regulator gave us a helpful written response, from which I would like to quote. At Ev 291 to the first report of Session 2001–02, he most helpfully states, 
''The Regulator has a number of statutory duties. These duties are set by Parliament and can be removed only by Parliament. If the definition of burden and interference is regulatory action carried out in the course of the Regulator exercising his functions by discharging his duties, that is a function of legislation passed in 2000 and brought into force on 1 February 2001.''
 We are not assisted by the fact that that Act is not available in the Room either. For the purposes of clarity in debate on the Bill, hon. Members need to know precisely what the regulator's role will be. 
 The regulator went on to say: 
''When Railtrack was privatised, it was done with a weak regulatory system which did not meet the needs of its customers or the public interest. The Regulator's programme for the reform of Railtrack's accountability, which is almost complete, has been widely supported by the industry and Parliament, including the Transport Sub-Committee and the Public Accounts Committee. It would be remarkable if, now that the infrastructure provider is to be recreated or restructured following the railway administration of Railtrack, the strengths of the regime created in the last two years and so recently completed were to be taken out and the weaknesses which caused so many problems in the past retrofitted.''
 The evidence continues: 
''In respect of Railtrack or its successor''
 —and its successor is now with us as Network Rail— 
''as the Regulator said in his oral evidence to the Sub-Committee, the major failing of Railtrack's management to date has been their lack of focus on their customers and on the actions they should have taken to ensure the competent stewardship of their assets. The greater the customers' dissatisfactions in relation to the adequacy of an industry's asset stewardship plans, the more any regulator will be called upon to intervene. Had Railtrack done the things it should have done to satisfy its customers and plan for the long-term health of its assets, the Regulator would not have had to intervene to require the company to do them. The Regulator does not consider that he required of Railtrack anything that a competent and efficient company would not have chosen to do for itself.''
 The final paragraph elucidates matters very well: 
''For the railway industry as a whole, whatever the structure, there will be a need for regulation in respect of safety, performance and efficiency, with specific controls to prevent the abuse of monopoly power wherever that might arise.''
 I simply ask why the Government are not minded to write the provisions of the Transport Act 2000 into the Bill. Would not it have been clearer to specify the functions in the Bill? It is possible, I admit, that I am the only one who finds pages 51 and 52 of the Bill particularly confusing. However, I think that it would be enormously helpful to set out what the Office of Rail Regulation is being asked to do. 
 The Select Committee was sufficiently concerned to state, in conclusion (t) on page 39 of its report: 
''While the need for an independent economic regulator with clearly defined responsibilities, duties and objectives will continue, the respective roles of the Regulator and the Strategic Rail Authority should be reviewed.''
 I repeat that while amendment No. 53 does not encompass the question of the role of the Strategic Rail Authority, the Government might want to take the opportunity before Report of responding to the Select Committee's request to set out the relationship 
 between the new Office of Rail Regulation and the Strategic Rail Authority. 
 Conclusion (u) on page 39 of the Select Committee report is also pertinent. It states: 
''While private sector companies remain involved in the railways, it is clear that the industry must have an independent Regulator. However, if the Strategic Rail Authority is to play a strategic role, it should be given sole responsibility for allocating funds and deciding how network track capacity be used, and overall responsibility for rail infrastructure. Even though it may take some time before any legislative changes are in place, we further recommend that the Government presents its proposals for changing the regulatory regime before Railtrack's successor emerges from the process of administration.''
 That did not happen, but the legislative framework is before us and I plead with the Government to do what the Select Committee recommended. 
 Conclusion (b) of the minority report on page 56 states: 
''If the Strategic Rail Authority is to remain a viable force the Government must allow the authority to operate independently and free from Government interference. The Strategic Rail Authority must be held to its responsibilities to publish an annual report and an updated strategic plan.''
 We may wish to return to that matter, which raises the question whether the Office of Rail Regulation will be required to publish an annual report and accounts and, if so, whether the House or the appropriate Select Committee will have an opportunity to debate them. 
 Schedules 2 and 3 relate to the transfer of functions. I am disappointed that the clause does not state what those functions should be. The functions of the Office of Rail Regulation are broadly as we outlined them and the Library has produced a lengthy resumé of the role of the rail regulator, which states: 
''The powers allow him to set the contractual and financial framework''.
 We agree that the original regulatory framework was not tight enough and none of us wants the unfortunate scenario involving the rail regulator and the previous Secretary of State to be repeated. In the interests of clarity, it would be helpful if the Government included in the Bill the helpful suggestion in one of their own documents. The Library research paper states that part of the role of rail regulator should be to ensure 
''that Network Rail's income . . . is spent on the right things at the right times.''
 The paper continues for four pages setting out the functions of the rail regulator. It is staggering that the Bill as drafted does not set out the core functions of the Office of Rail Regulation. 
 I submit the amendment in a spirit of helpfulness. When we discuss the remaining schedules, I hope that the Minister will see why this part of the Bill should be the least controversial. The Committee wants a strong Office of Rail Regulation. If we are to replace an individual with a board, it is essential to know what its functions will be. I hope that the Government will accept this short, tidy, neat and helpful amendment.

John Spellar: We are still making heavy weather of things. I am not sure that the hon. Lady's contribution in respect of this amendment squares with her lengthy earlier contribution. She paid tribute to the rail regulator and his role in exercising his powers under
 current legislation, then seemed to have difficulty with those functions and duties being transferred to the Office of Rail Regulation. It was sensible to make the consequential amendments, which transfer those powers from the rail regulator to the Office of Rail Regulation. The hon. Lady did not make any case to say why that is inappropriate. She asked several pertinent questions, for example on reports and accounts. I advise her that the ORR currently publishes annual reports and accounts and a business plan.
 The hon. Lady rightly drew attention to the roles of the Strategic Rail Authority and the rail regulator. She will be aware that when Railtrack was placed in administration, the Government embarked on a review of the regulator's role, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the results of that review in a parliamentary answer on 12 June 2002. The proposals were to change to a regulatory board and to issue statutory guidance to the regulator and directions and guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority, having regard to the authority's budget and strategies. Those documents were subsequently issued. The announcement went on to say that the effectiveness of the regulatory regime would continue to be kept under review as the rail sector developed. The Secretary of State set out the overarching principles that applied to that, making it crystal clear that independent economic regulation was an essential continuing requirement. 
 The hon. Lady must take on board that the principles laid down in the functions and duties in the Railways Act 1993, as amended by the Transport Act 2000, are broad and flexible. That enables the office to be adaptable, and I will give an example. It was possible to accommodate the change in management infrastructure from Railtrack to Network Rail, which, as different types of company, raise significantly different regulatory issues. That transition was accomplished under the existing functions and duties. I hope that the hon. Lady will reflect on that and withdraw her amendment.

Anne McIntosh: I hear what the Minister is saying. I thought that he could have given more credit to, and been more generous with time in responding to the request of the Select Committee, which has been one of the most active in recent years. I say that with a vested interest, as I served on the Committee for two years. It has been one of the most well directed and focused Committees. It asked why, with the review of the SRA, the Government have not taken the opportunity to go forward.
 I believe that there are strong arguments. The industry would welcome knowing that the specific functions will be replaced. There will be opportunities to come back to the matter, so for the moment I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 - Abolition of Rail Regulator: Consequential Amendments

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Second schedule to the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I want clarification from the Minister. The table in schedule 2 seems to have been lifted entirely from the Railways Act 1993—I assume that the Transport Act 2000 did not have a huge impact on the schedule—but it is not as clear as it could be. I am mindful of the Minister's earlier comment that there is provision for annual reports, annual accounts and a business plan, which is helpful. It would have been helpful to take the opportunity in schedules 2 and 3 to link in the relationship with the SRA.
 Paragraph 22 contains the first reference to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996. One of our amendments proposed that the channel tunnel be specifically excluded from the Bill. We had the opportunity to allow a separate body to deal with the channel tunnel, which would prevent any funny business. Someone from Europe might insist, for example, that a French investigation be conducted on the English side of the channel, or vice versa. The Minister will be disappointed, because the amendment would have been helpful. 
 Schedule 3 refers to savings that will be made as a result of the abolition of the rail regulator. It would be helpful if the Minister would confirm the proposed timetable for that. My understanding is that the rail regulator will remain in place and serve out his contract. I assume that the start date for the Rail Safety and Standards Board is imminent, and that there will be a gap during which the board will perform some of the Office of Rail Regulation's duties. Can the Minister confirm the time scale for phasing out the rail regulator, so that the regulator, as well as the Committee, may know exactly where he stands? 
 I do not disagree with the hon. Member for Bath on the principle of replacing the rail regulator with the board, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said, we want to know the reasons for that. Are they in keeping with the principles that the Minister failed miserably to convince me about? I do not know how I shall explain to my hon. Friend how we square that. 
 The title of schedule 3 mentions that savings will be made. On a cursory reading—

Alan Hurst: Order. We are debating schedule 2.

Anne McIntosh: I am ahead of myself. I am grateful to you, Mr. Hurst, for that stricture. Schedule 2, especially part 2 on amendments to other Acts, refers to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996. It would be helpful to know more about the references to the Postal Services Act 2000 and the Utilities Act 2000.
 The Minister said earlier that the rail regulator publishes an annual report, accounts and a business plan, and I wonder whether the Minister could direct me to the specific provision between line 35 on page 51 
 and line 33 on page 52 that deals with annual accounts and, in particular, the regulator's business plan. Would it be appropriate in future for all three documents to be submitted to the relevant Select Committees?

John Spellar: I reassure the hon. Lady that the Rail Safety and Standards Board will not withdraw any of the regular's functions, nor will those functions be withdrawn when they transfer to the Office of Rail Regulation. With regard to the timing of the board's implementation, we have stated that we do not plan to introduce the Office of Rail Regulation before mid–2004. The regulator's appointment runs until then. As the hon. Lady will be aware, we have agreed to undertake an interim review of Network Rail's charges. That will occupy the regulator and his team over the next year. It is important that that work is not disrupted in any way.
 The hon. Lady also mentioned the Transport Act 2000. I draw her attention to paragraph 19(t), which deals with that. The Office of Rail Regulation is substituted for the rail regulator in the appropriate clauses. 
 Yet again, I hope that the hon. Lady is satisfied that we are reading across from current regulations on the role of the Office of the Rail Regulator, and transferring those functions and duties to the Office of Rail Regulation. The schedule gives effect to the principles outlined in the clause.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister said that the present rail regulator is undertaking a review of Network Rail, and I think that all hon. Members have been consulted on that. A further part of his work will be proposed network licence modifications following the acquisition of Railtrack by Network Rail.
 It may have been confusion on my part to think that the Rail Safety and Standards Board would perform any of the duties of the rail regulator, but the two will clearly work closely, as set out in annexe A of the document. Parliamentary scrutiny of the documents would be helpful. However, the debate has been helpful. 
 Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3 - Abolition of Rail Regulator: Savings, &c. Question proposed, That this schedule be the Third schedule to the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: Briefly, and having spoken out of turn, Mr. Hurst, I ask the Minister to explain whether the savings referred to in the title will be made through the abolition of the rail regulator. We have already identified one increase—the £200,000 extra for non-executive members. After adding up the wage bills of the chairman, chief executive and at least three other members of the board, plus pensions for retiring members, I have great difficulty in identifying where savings could be made, and I invite the Minister to do so. Has the Treasury said that those people will all be paid less than the existing rail regulator? On the face of it, that will not be so.
 Paragraph 5(2) states that 
''the Secretary of State may continue to make payments in accordance with arrangements made before commencement for or in respect of a pension for a person who held the office of the Rail Regulator.''
 What pension provision does the Minister have in mind? More pertinently, paragraph 5(3) states: 
''The Secretary of State may pay compensation to the last person who held the office of the Rail Regulator.''
 That raises a curious spectacle.

Don Foster: To save my having to give a speech, perhaps the hon. Lady will ask the Minister to explain why there might be a need for compensation? He assured us that the new body will not come into force until 2004, which is when the contract for the existing rail regulator will come to an end. While she is at it, and to avoid doubt, the hon. Lady might ask the Minister whether all other employees who now work for the Office of the Rail Regulator will have their pensions continued. That seems not to be covered in paragraph 5.

Alan Hurst: Order. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that Members are not expected to read newspapers or other documents for amusement during Committee proceedings.

Anne McIntosh: I thought, Mr. Hurst, that you were talking about the hon. Member for Bath. I do not imagine that he can read a newspaper and answer a question at the same time, ambidextrous though he is.
 I am sure that the Minister will have heard what the hon. Member for Bath said. I had difficulty with the paragraph because I wrongly linked the two schedules. I apologise for that and will make sure that I do not again get quite so vigorously ahead of myself. 
 In the response to my question on schedule 2, we were told that the present rail regulator's contract will run its course and that he will then go on his way. I am sure that he will take with him any pension provision to which he is entitled. The hon. Member for Bath raised the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—another of those dreaded EU directives—which caused great consternation. Will the Minister tell us the implications for other savings? Will the Office of Rail Regulation remain where the current rail regulator is housed? From the discussion that we had on the increase in volume of staff and officials that the new Office of Rail Regulation is intended to have, it seems that a big property will be needed to house them and their egos. 
 This is a cheeky little measure and, mindful of the fact that the hon. Member for Bath believed that the rail regulator would serve the length of his contract and then go on his way, will the Minister tell me what compensation the Secretary of State may feel is due under paragraph 5(3) 
''to the last person who held the office of the Rail Regulator.''
 What would be the basis of such compensation? I do not believe that the outgoing chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, Sir Alistair Morton, received such compensation. If a person serves the full term of their contract and their pension arrangements are 
 honoured, I cannot see that there should be a right to further compensation. 
 Presumably, such compensation would be in the form of a one-off payment. The paragraph states that it would be made to the last person who held the office, and we know who that is. The Government are being pretty beastly to the person concerned and have been fairly public about it. Is that why the Government believed that they needed to include the provision? Will there be a little amendment down the road to delete it? If the incumbent serves to the end of his contract—the Minister assured us this morning that he would—I do not see what reason there would be for compensation. I am sure that the Government regret being as beastly as they have been to the rail regulator, but that does not justify compensation. 
 I would like further guidance from the Minister. During the course of the Bill to set up the Office of Communications, concern was expressed by the staff of the five existing regulators. Incidentally, one would think that savings could be made by replacing five regulators with one, but we could not get a commitment from the Government on that. The hon. Member for Bath touched on the question of staff transfers—will the staff be invited to transfer their functions from the office of the rail regulator to the Office of Rail Regulation, and what will happen to their pensions in the event of their not transferring? Will they be given a new contract, or will they carry on regardless? 
 I also have a difficulty with paragraph 6, which states: 
''Section 15 is without prejudice to any function, property, right or liability of the International Rail Regulator.''
 I presume that the Minister will confirm that the international rail regulator will continue in his position. I am surprised, however, that the Bill is silent on the nature of the relationship between the new Office of Rail Regulation and the international rail regulator. However, Mr. Winsor is lucky, as it seems that he will receive a big sum of compensation.

John Spellar: The essence of this fairly mundane and boring schedule is to ensure continuity and a seamless transition. The revision on compensation is just for completeness and to cover all circumstances and eventualities. It does not mean that compensation would necessarily be paid or that anyone would not serve out their term of office.

Don Foster: I understand that legislation must cover, as the Minister puts it, all eventualities. However, can he tell us what eventuality might lead to compensation, given the clear assurances that he gave us earlier that the Office of Rail Regulation will not be brought into play until the end of the current regulator's contract?

John Spellar: I cannot envisage those circumstances in the current position, but it is normal for legislation to contain contingencies for all possible eventualities.

Kelvin Hopkins: Is it not the custom sometimes to give assurances—possibly private assurances—to someone on a contract that their contract is likely to be
 renewed? If a decision were made to change that position, compensation might, in some sense, be appropriate.

John Spellar: I think that my hon. Friend will be aware that the appointments are on a fixed term. The term of any period of office is covered within the legislation.

Don Foster: If we are going to consider any eventuality, will the Minister take the matter the other way round and tell us what he envisages would happen if for some reason Mr. Tom Winsor, the current rail regulator, decided to leave his post before the end of his contract? Would, for example, the Office of Rail Regulation then be established earlier? I hope that the Minister would agree that no compensation would then be payable to that individual.

John Spellar: I do not think that it would be especially helpful to go through all possible circumstances. Needless to say, paragraph 5(3) enables the Secretary of State to pay compensation, should that be appropriate. In other words, the provisions are designed for the sake of completeness, not the circumstances that we envisage.

Anne McIntosh: I listened with care to the right hon. Gentleman. He said that the rights are covered in legislation. Which legislation is that? Will he talk about the savings to which the schedule refers?

John Spellar: I actually said terms of office, in answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins).
 All other employees will retain their existing pensions rights, because they are currently civil servants and will continue to be so following their transfer from the rail regulator to the Office of Rail Regulation. I am advised that savings in the context of the title of the schedule is not a financial term, but relates to the legal position of the regulator following transfer. Sometimes there are dangers that English and legal jargon are different languages that need to be translated into one another. However, I am advised that that term relates to the legal position of the regulator following transfer.

Don Foster: Just to tease the Minister a little bit, I tell him that he cannot say that the term relates to something—he must tell us what it means. Could he tell us what ''savings'' means in legal terms in the context of the schedule?

John Spellar: I am sure that it means savings in the normal, legal sense of the term, as applied in the title of the schedule. The schedule is fairly mundane. It merely tidies up the Bill's provisions, and I commend it to the Committee.

Anne McIntosh: I am sorry, but I find the matter extraordinary. Savings to me are savings. I am a Scot and I know what savings are. If one saves money, one saves money; if one spends money, one does not save. I find it extraordinary that the term should be included in the Bill. My experience is limited and humble, and I bow to the years of experience of the hon. Member for Bath. I do not see why the term is in the Bill. No
 wonder we have such difficulty applying Acts of Parliament when they say something that patently is not meant.
 Reverting to paragraph 5(3), my mind has not been put at rest. Assuming that the present regulator serves his term of office, I see no grounds for compensation: the Minister has not given an adequate explanation. The hon. Member for Bath went further in raising a worst-case scenario of the present rail regulator going off in a huff and resigning before the legislation comes into force. The Bill will have to run its course through both Houses of Parliament and receive Royal Assent. It cannot be hurried along because due parliamentary process is necessary. The Government have not explained adequately what might happen in the interim. It seems odd to put a person in place to perform the functions of the rail regulator for only a year or nine or six months. We shall let the matter rest for the moment, but we shall return to it in due course. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 16 - Extent

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: Clearly, one question needs to be asked. For my own personal knowledge, what is the legal position of the rail regulator in Northern Ireland? I am interested to know why the provisions apply only to England, Wales and Scotland. Who will be responsible for the Office of Rail Regulation in Northern Ireland?

John Spellar: The current regulator has no duties or responsibilities for railways in Northern Ireland, and that position continues under the Bill. The hon. Lady may be aware that Northern Ireland's railways are organised differently and that there is no equivalent of the rail regulator. However, in response to European directives on the separation of track and train operators, a move in that direction may be necessary. It is mirrored by action that is taking place in the Republic of Ireland. I know that it is being considered in Northern Ireland, but it is not currently appropriate for the rail regulator to cover that part of the United Kingdom.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 18 - Coordination between Health and Safety Executive and the Office of Rail Regulation

'The Memorandum of Understanding between the Health and Safety Executive and the Office of Rail Regulation shall be replaced by a new memorandum, the purpose of which is to promote effective coordination of the regulatory orders of each body and cooperation between them.'.—[Miss McIntosh.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 I am grateful for the opportunity to move this new clause. The Minister and the Under-Secretary have both referred to the aviation accident investigation branch as the model organisation for accident investigation. I understand that work done in Farnborough often proves the key to swift investigation of aviation accidents. I personally become confused when I hear talk about the protocol, and the hon. Member for Bath spoke about a memorandum of understanding. 
 The railway industry raised various concerns about the Bill. It welcomed what the Bill was designed to achieve. It has seen for itself the work of the aviation accident investigation branch, and in particular the protocols and memorandum of understanding to which it works. My understanding is that they are tight documents. By comparison, the protocols and memorandum of understanding relating to the rail industry are voluminous and include several annexes. It is my wish that we should use as the model for the documents that flow from this legislation the protocols and memorandum of understanding drafted by the aviation accident investigation branch. I wonder whether the Minister has given any thought to that. 
 I understand that there is currently a memorandum of understanding—probably a hefty document—between the Health and Safety Executive and the Office of Rail Regulation, and I am sure that the Minister will confirm that there are memorandums of understanding or protocols between the Strategic Rail Authority and the HSE.

Don Foster: Lest the hon. Lady should mislead the Committee, it is hardly a voluminous document. It is three and a half pages long. I have a copy here.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that. Representatives of the industry gave me the impression that many of the protocols were lengthy, certainly in comparison with the protocol of the AAIB, which probably does not even run to three pages and uses a bigger font.
 There is a memorandum of understanding between the Health and Safety Executive and the Office of Rail Regulation or, as it stands at the moment, the rail regulator. I think the Minister said that that would stay in place until April 2004. The new clause gives us the opportunity to consider the relationship, as set out in the memorandum of understanding, between the HSE and the new Office of Rail Regulation, and also—the Select Committee made a plea for this—to examine the scope of the relationship between the Strategic Rail Authority and the Office of Rail Regulation. As the hon. Member for Bath mentioned, that will be a difficult issue. I am sure that when we consider part 3 of the Bill, we will discuss the relationship between the rail accident investigation branch and the police. 
 There is some merit and strength in the argument that the rail accident investigation branch, as is the case with the aviation and marine accident investigation branches, will be first on the scene and will have a clear right to inspect and to take statements, so it would be helpful to set out what that relationship will be in a memorandum of 
 understanding at the earliest possible stage. We all agree that the priority should be for a swift and comprehensive investigation in every case. It is clearly understood that any statement given to the aviation accident investigation branch will, in no circumstances, be made available to anyone else, even if the person who made the statement wishes its contents to be made available at a later date. The reasons for that were set out by the Secretary of State and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale on Second Reading, so there is no argument there. The purpose is to ensure a speedy investigation, which reaches a swift conclusion and goes to the root causes of the accident. That should be shared with the industry at the earliest opportunity. 
 The memorandum of understanding has not done what we are seeking to do with the Health and Safety Executive and the Office of Rail Regulation, nor has the other memorandum of understanding, or protocols as they are often known. Regrettably, there is a lacuna in our understanding of what will be the status of these statements. My understanding is that in the case of the aviation accident investigation branch, it was clear at the outset that any statement made could not be prejudiced or released to anyone else, but would be dealt with in good faith, and that the lessons to be learned, the root causes and the prevention of similar accidents would immediately be passed on to the entire industry. 
 Our new clause 18 states: 
''The Memorandum of Understanding . . . shall be replaced by a new memorandum, the purpose of which is to promote effective coordination of the regulatory orders of each body and cooperation between them.'
 This is a useful opportunity not only to suggest that the memorandum of understanding should be replaced, but to determine what a memorandum of understanding should say if the parties to the investigation are to know exactly where they stand and if we are to learn what the status of their statements will be. That applies as much to the marine accident investigation branch as it does to the aviation accident investigation branch. 
 I admit that I have some difficulty in knowing what the role of the Health and Safety Executive will be following enactment of the Bill. We discussed that at some length on Second Reading. In the interests of clarity, however, it would be helpful to get to grips with these different memorandums and protocols, to look to the models of the two other investigation branches, as we have throughout our consideration, and to state clearly that the memorandums of understanding will run only until, say, April 2004 and will be replaced. We know what the model and the status of evidence given to each of them will be. 
 We submitted the new clause in the spirit of helpfulness, and I hope that the Government will look generously on it. I do not want to labour the point, but I have some concern about the role of the Health and Safety Executive, and what its relationship will be with the rail accident investigation branch and the Office of Rail Regulation. I am aware of the raft of 
 memorandums or protocols in the railway industry. I know that the industry envies the clarity of the aviation accident investigation branch's memorandum of understanding, and I hope that the Government will look favourably on our new clause.

Don Foster: I am sure that the hon. Lady anticipates, rightly, that the Minister will reject her new clause as unnecessary. Nevertheless, it raises a point that we touched on before and, as she rightly says, that we will touch on again. Members of the Committee will know that with all the various bodies operating on our railways, there is potential for confusion about their responsibilities and joint working arrangements. The hon. Lady did not say so, but I am sure that she would agree that it is crucial that the new Office of Rail Regulation is an independent body that should not be fettered by any outside influences. At the same time, its work will inevitably have an impact on the working of other bodies, so there needs to be some arrangement to determine how joint working will happen.
 The hon. Lady obviously did not have the opportunity to read the existing memorandum. It is worth reading clause 5 of that memorandum, which clearly sets out the principles of how these documents should operate. It states: 
''The parties recognise the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between the health and safety responsibilities of HSE and the wider duties of the Rail Regulator. However, they recognise that actions by each party in performance of its duties may on occasion impinge on the other party's performance of its duties, and that therefore a framework of effective working arrangements is necessary to ensure mutual co-operation whenever appropriate. The following paragraphs set out such a framework of mutual co-operation.''
 We can see that the document contains nothing particularly riveting or surprising. It says that the rail regulator undertakes to consult, to take account of, to notify, to send copies and so on. Similarly, the HSE undertakes to consult, to provide with timely advice, to notify, to ensure that the regulator is included in all relevant consultations and to inform. That is eminently sensible and straightforward. 
 I hope that the Minister will say that, with the establishment of the Office of Rail Regulation, a new memorandum of understanding will inevitably need to be drawn up. Much more importantly, the new clause gives him an opportunity to make it clear that, with all the new bodies being established and changes being made—the new arrangements for the British Transport police, the new rail accident investigation branch and the establishment of a board with the Office of Rail Regulation—we will need to keep under fairly constant review the relationships between those bodies. 
 Although the hon. Member for Vale of York did not highlight it, she raised the unasked question. What precisely will be the role of the HSE, given that the establishment of the Railway Safety and Standards Board is about to be formally announced? Many changes are taking place, and we are considering the working relationships in a wide variety of contexts, whether it be the investigation of an accident, the 
 regulatory framework or the new, dynamic and growing powers, as they appear to be, of the Strategic Rail Authority. The SRA is getting involved even in negotiations about pay and conditions for employees of the train operating companies. Given all those changes, there are changing dynamics in the railway system. I hope that the Minister will tell us how all those relationships will operate, not just about the relationship between the ORR and the HSE.

John Spellar: May I clarify something for the hon. Member for Vale of York? Each of the aviation, marine and rail bodies is a branch, not a board.
 As the hon. Member for Bath intimated, we are considering the relationships between various bodies, although the provision refers to the relationship between two bodies: the Office of Rail Regulation and the HSE. They have distinct but complementary roles, and have to work closely together. 
 Section 4(3)(a) of the Railways Act 1993 places a duty on the regulator in exercising his functions to take account of safety and in particular any advice given to him by the HSE. Arising from that, as the hon. Member for Vale of York said, the two organisations have had a memorandum of understanding since 1998. That explains how they have agreed to work together and lists undertakings by each body to the other, as the hon. Member for Bath described. Those organisations are working together on revising the memorandum to ensure that it fully reflects what has become a close working relationship. 
 The memorandum of understanding is with the rail regulator, but it will, along with a number of other agreements, flow to the Office of Rail Regulation in a seamless transfer. The change in the internal administration and mechanics will not mean that all agreements are voided and would have to be renegotiated, although, as I said, they might be revised as part of the ongoing process. There would be a transfer to the new body. 
 The hon. Member for Bath asked what the position of the HSE would be. He went slightly wider than the new clause, but it could impinge on that. The HSE will continue to be the safety regulator for the railways, drawing its powers from the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. The rail accident investigation branch will establish the causes of accidents and seek to spread the lessons from that and best practice throughout the industry. The HSE will continue to ensure that an appropriate health and safety regime is in place on the railways. The new clause seeks to establish a memorandum of understanding to define the roles and to ensure co-operation between these bodies. It is unnecessary because it seeks to enshrine in legislation best practice that is best left to independent authorities drawing from their own statutory basis.

Don Foster: I apologise to the Minister for my ignorance, but he says that the HSE will continue to be the safety regulator for the railways. Will the new body—the rail safety and standards board—be responsible for setting safety standards and will the HSE regulate to check whether those standards are in
 place? I am oversimplifying, but is that broadly speaking the nature of the relationship?

John Spellar: The Rail Safety and Standards Board is an industry body, whereas the HSE is the statutory body. Inevitably there will be considerable co-operation between them. If the hon. Gentleman is asking who is the formal safety regulator for the railway industry, the answer is the HSE. Inevitably, even as a result of the Railways Act, it will interact with the office of the rail regulator. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the memorandum defines a whole number of ways in which those interfaces take place and how they will be dealt with. Both bodies draw their powers and their roles from statute. The successor to the rail regulator—the Office of Rail Regulation—will also draw its powers from statute but it will need to have those relationships.
 It is not necessary to enshrine such a memorandum in legislation, because that is best practice between those bodies. They will obviously continue to do that but legislation should set up the functions and duties of the bodies. It is for the bodies themselves to decide how best to organise their work so that they can fulfil those duties and take account of best practice. I hope with that assurance that the hon. Lady will withdraw the motion.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful to the Minister and to the hon. Member for Bath. It has become apparent from this short debate that the Committee is not uniformly convinced that we know what the role of the HSE is at present and it should be in future. The Minister concluded by saying that the purpose of the legislation is to set out what the functions and duties of the respective bodies should be. I can only speak from a personal capacity, but I think that the Bill and the present legislation are defective. There will be greater confusion after the rail safety and standards board and the railways accident investigation branch comes into being and after the Office of Rail Regulation replaces the rail regulator.
 Wearing my European hat, because I know the right hon. Gentleman would be disappointed if I did not bring in Europe at some stage, in Europe there are many amending treaties that refer to previous treaties rather than one text to consolidate and replace them. This amending Bill may lead us into similar muddles. 
 The Select Committee made the same request in respect of the Strategic Rail Authority. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bath has gone further than I dared by saying that we need to go further in defining the role of the Health and Safety Executive.

Don Foster: The hon. Lady honestly said that she was genuinely confused, as I am, about the HSE's current role, and increasingly confused about its future role. The Minister has tried to be helpful, but he has not helped me much. I suspect that we need to go away with a damp cloth to try to work it out. Does the hon. Lady agree that there is confusion about who sets the standards, because there is conflict between the industry standards and the technical specifications for interoperability from Europe? No one has ever told me who is responsible for resolving conflict between
 them. We have difficulty knowing which standards are set by the HSE, yet the HSE monitors the standards. I confess that I am confused. Does the hon. Lady share my confusion?

Anne McIntosh: I will admit to being confused. The hon. Gentleman is also being honest in admitting his confusion. The existing regulations specify that the ultimate responsibility for safety on rail tracks and at stations rests with Her Majesty's rail inspectorate, which I understand to be within the Health and Safety Executive. Its responsibilities and statutory background remain as they were before the passing of the Railways Act. That is my understanding, on the highest authority of the House of Commons Library.
 Day-to-day responsibility for safety belongs to Network Rail—formerly Railtrack—and the train-operating companies. I am confused by the plethora of legislation. The Railways Act brought all railway safety legislation within the framework created by the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, and confirmed the Health and Safety Commission as a principal provider of policy advice to Ministers on railway safety issues. We may seek clarification later as to whether the Health and Safety at Work Act is still the legal basis for some of the investigations into rail accidents.

Kelvin Hopkins: I took the opportunity last night to have dinner with two friends from the railway industry and showed them the Bill. They thought that it was very good and that it restored necessary safety legislation on the railway industry that had been mistakenly removed in previous years. The hon. Lady suggests that the plethora of legislation is a problem, but experts from the industry say that it is necessary and appropriate.

Anne McIntosh: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman had a good dinner. I had a cup of tea with two of my new friends from the railway industry, so they did not do quite so well out of it. I understand that the Act on which one chooses to base the investigation could affect its outcome. If one uses the Health and Safety at Work Act, the Health and Safety Executive may carry out an investigation that may be critical of the Health and Safety Executive. It was put to me, and I now put it to the Minister, that it would be better for inquiries to be conducted under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992. I leave the Minister with that thought, as we may not have reached the appropriate part of the Bill.

Don Foster: Before the hon. Lady ends, will she reflect on this scenario? What would she think if someone from the rail industry who had had dinner with me—we have all, apart from the hon. Lady, done well for food—argued that on branch lines, the standards should be the same as for main lines, so that a little train pottering along slowly still had to meet high standards in case it crashed into a high-speed train, even though no high-speed trains would ever be allowed on that branch line? I tried to work out with my industry representative who would have the authority to change the level of standard that applied in order to reduce costs and make branch lines more effective. Between us, we could not work out who,
 ultimately, could take that decision. Does the hon. Lady know?

Anne McIntosh: If I had the answer, I would be sitting on the Government Benches and the Minister would be sitting on the Opposition Benches.

John Spellar: If you had more votes, you would be sitting here.

Anne McIntosh: All right, I give in.
 Let me develop the point. I have mentioned the Railways Act, the Health and Safety at Work Act, and the memorandum of understanding signed by the Health and Safety Commission and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on 10 October 1996. The memorandum replaced the previous agency agreement between the Health and Safety Commission and the Secretary of State for Transport; Her Majesty's rail inspectorate was transferred from the Department to the Health and Safety Executive on 1 December 1990. I am not sure what Department the Health and Safety Executive is in. I believe that it is still in the Department of Health—

John Spellar: The Department for Work and Pensions.

Anne McIntosh: It seems that it has now moved to the Department for Work and Pensions—yet another Department to add to the confusion.
 Under the memorandum of 10 October 1996, the Health and Safety Executive carries out certain functions on behalf of the Health and Safety Commission for the Secretary of State through Her Majesty's rail inspectorate. The purpose of new clause 18 is simply to draw the various threads together. 
 I understand that the chief inspector of the rail inspectorate advises the Secretary of State on behalf of the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive on such matters as the approval of new railway works—that does not help the hon. Member for Bath with his branch lines—and monitoring the effectiveness of the new safety regime following the privatisation of British Rail. The chief inspector also has responsibility for producing reports on serious accidents and dangerous occurrences. 
 Additionally, a separate memorandum of understanding exists between the Health and Safety Executive and the Office of the Rail Regulator. Its purpose is to promote effective co-ordination of the regulatory roles of each body and co-operation between them. Under the memorandum, the rail inspectorate is required to produce an annual report on the safety record of Britain's railways, focusing on the work of the inspectorate and highlighting issues of concern. 
 New clause 18 was drafted by my hon. Friends and me, and the hon. Member for Bath has raised pertinent points. It would have been helpful to have greater clarification. I am now even less certain about the future roles of Her Majesty's rail inspectorate, the Health and Safety Executive and the Health and Safety Commission—much more uncertain now than I was at the start of the debate. I do not know whether the Minister wants to end my confusion. We have had 
 a good debate. We shall want to return to the issue later, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17

The British Transport Police Authority 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to have the opportunity to move on to part 3 of the Bill. I want to share with the Committee my first unfortunate experience of assistance from the British Transport police. I was travelling back from work in Brussels, and I had booked for the first time on the hovercraft, which was then a new vessel. The hovercraft could not travel because the sea was too rough, so I had to come on the overnight ferry. I ended up at Victoria station at 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning. The first train north from King's Cross station to my family home did not leave until 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning.
 A cause of great distress to me was that I was done by a taxi tout. I was not familiar with London—I do not know whether I am much more familiar with it now—and I did not want to take public transport, although I doubt that I could have anyway. I was in a long queue for taxis at 2 o'clock in the morning to get to King's Cross when a gentleman offered to take me out of the queue into his private car. I did not realise that he was neither insured nor licensed, and I was even more disgusted to be ripped off, as I paid enough to travel much further in a proper taxi. 
 I presented myself to the British Transport police, who were immensely helpful. Rather alarmingly, they told me about other individuals with whom I should not have any dealings at King's Cross in the early hours of the morning. 
 I pay tribute the British Transport police and add to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale on Second Reading. He commended the work of the British Transport police. He spoke about them in the highest possible terms, and said that 
''it is important for the British Transport police to know that they have the full support of people throughout the country and on both sides of the House for their work. I hope that the Secretary of State's prioritisation of their work in the Bill will also be reflected in the negotiations that he and others hold with the Treasury on the provision of resources for that police service. Conservative Members continue to hold the view that our police, in general, need more backing and that certainly holds as true for the British Transport police as for any other organisation.''—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 780.]
 I welcome clause 17 and the thinking that lies behind it, in particular the fact that the British Transport police authority will be placed on a statutory footing in much the same way as other British police forces.

Andrew Murrison: I join my hon. Friend in endorsing the good work of the British Transport police, but will she reflect on the need for separate police forces to deal with the railways and various other parts of our national life, particularly defence? It is important to provide the justification for having separate police forces, and therefore authorities, before we go much further.

Anne McIntosh: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent and well-made point, and we will have the opportunity during discussions on part 3 to examine that request. I hope that the Minister will have heard that and will respond to it.
 The jurisdiction of the British Transport police authority has already been extended beyond the railways in certain circumstances through the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, and some changes to the powers of the British Transport police were included in the Police Reform Act 2002. My understanding is that the Bill completes the package of changes and the Government's 2001 consultation exercise. 
 We have an opportunity to commend the work of the British Transport police. Its morale is reasonably high, in spite of the fact that railways may be a terrorist target—I hesitate to say that, given that I travel by rail to my constituency most weekends. It is welcome that the legislation, tidies up the ways in which the transport police are operated and empowered, as well as putting the extension of the powers of the transport police on a statutory footing. 
 The British Transport police are the national police force for the railways in Great Britain. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) was arguing that it should have responsibility only for the railways. It is already responsible for the London underground, the Docklands light railway, the Croydon tramlink and the Midland metro. Its activities include law and order policing, maintaining the Queen's peace and protecting railway staff and the public on the railways. It is regrettable that, in an age in which everybody is under pressure and stress on their way to and from work—not just on the railways but at airports and ports—transport staff are subjected to aggressive and often abusive behaviour. That makes their work difficult and is creating additional work for the British Transport police. The force is commendable; it deals with all crimes, including the most serious crimes, which are not necessarily on the railways but are those that affect women as they leave railway stations, who are very vulnerable. The British Transport police have to investigate murder, violent sexual offences, robberies, theft, fraud and a host of other incidents including accidents, fatalities and suicides. It is another sign of the times that there is an increased tendency for people to throw themselves in front of trains, notably on the London tube.

Andrew Murrison: On a slightly lighter note, among my briefing notes I see a list of exceptions—crimes that the British Transport police cannot investigate. They are few, but the one that struck me was bigamy. Connecting with my earlier remarks, perhaps that will provide the cue for the Minister to explain any differences between the British Transport police and county police authorities and the reasons for them.

Anne McIntosh: My hon. Friend's briefing notes seem more extensive than mine. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity offered. Bearing in mind the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for
 Westmorland and Lonsdale on Second Reading, it is important to recognise the increasing role and expertise of the British Transport police in anti-terrorist strategy, the handling of major incidents and the policing of travelling sports fans. In the interests of morale, I hope that the Minister will confirm that he is not just putting the powers on a statutory basis, which is welcome, but is seeking to provide the force with further resources. That would be welcome in the case of the regular police who do magnificent work with limited resources.
 I fear for the morale of the British Transport police and the regular police. We ask more of them every year, yet they will be affected by the 1 per cent. additional national insurance contribution that will come into effect in April. I imagine that the Budget will lead to a standstill budget for the British Transport police next year, although I presume that they will benefit from the pay review and agreements reached with the regular police. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that. The morale of the police, not least the British Transport police, is obviously important. 
 The industry has a rather larger representation on the British Transport police authority than envisaged. We shall go on to consider how the authority will be revised, but the Minister made it clear this morning that a levy will clearly be imposed on the industry to pay for certain aspects of the Bill. It is curious the industry is being asked to pay more but will end up with proportionately less representation on the authority. If the industry is being asked to pay more, I urge the Minister in the strongest possible terms to ensure that its representation is increased, not reduced.

Linda Perham: The hon. Lady mentioned a matter spoken of by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) on Second Reading, which was the extension of the jurisdiction of the British Transport police under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. I spoke last week with the chief constable of the British Transport police, who is extremely supportive of the Bill, but that was his main worry. That Act contains a sunset clause, but it must be reviewed by the end of this year. I seek an assurance from the Minister, as did the hon. Lady, about the extension of jurisdiction, because the British Transport police wants to keep those powers.

Don Foster: I have no intention of holding the baton at the end of our proceedings, so I shall be brief. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham). I hope that we get a clear answer to that question. I support the clause, because it establishes something that the Government said that they would do back in 1998.
 During our debate on schedule 4, I shall raise a number of questions, not least about the notion that the Secretary of State should be responsible for the appointment of the chairman of the authority when all other chairmen are appointed by the authorities themselves.

John Spellar: The hon. Member for Bath slightly anticipates a later debate. It is not the case that all police authorities elect their own chairmen, but we will
 come to that detail in due course. It seems that I may be left holding the baton; perhaps the hon. Gentleman is going to another of his lunches and is not sure whether he will be here in time for this afternoon's sitting.
 I join the hon. Member for Vale of York in paying tribute to the management and the officers of the British Transport police for the extremely effective job 
 that they do. I say that not only because of the way in which they deal with the public, but because statistics show where they stand in the league of county police forces. 
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.